Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
"Fire and Rehire” is increasingly being used by employers looking to introduce alterations to Contracts of Employment where employees disagree with the changes being proposed. In essence, it entails employers dismissing employees (with contractual notice), and then offering them new employment on revised terms.
Although controversial, it isn’t illegal when handled properly. It’s also nothing new despite growing media attention borne out of the pandemic. There are, however, indications that this practice is becoming more widespread, as a result of businesses struggling through lockdown. But what are the facts, and where do businesses, or for that matter employees, legally stand when it comes to “Fire and Rehire”?
Whilst banned in Ireland, Spain and France, “Fire and Rehire” is common practice in the UK. In fact, research by the TUC shows that since March 2020, almost one in 10 UK workers have been forced to reapply for their role on poorer terms and conditions, or risk being let go permanently.
It’s employees with less than two years’ service that are at the highest risk due to their limited employment rights, although this isn’t always the case. Recently, however, there is a growing perception that COVID-19 has been used as a cover to reduce workers’ rights. Unite remains extremely critical of the practice, specifically citing the disparity this creates for employees at a time of enormous adversity in the aftermath of the pandemic, during which substantial Government support was offered to employers, including provisions such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
Statistics gathered by the GMB union back this sentiment, showing that three-quarters of people think “Fire and Rehire” should be outlawed. In January 2020, the Government launched an investigation into the practice with ACAS, however on 8 June 2021, the Government confirmed that whilst it condemned the use of “Fire and Rehire” as a negotiation tool, it would not be introducing legislation to ban the practice. As a result, it remains an option for employers dealing with a problematic issue.
“Fire and Rehire” is applied in a variety of situations by employers; there isn’t a uniform perspective on when it is, or isn’t, reasonable use. Circumstances may include:
When employers want to revise an employee’s terms of employment, there is often no straightforward solution. If the suggested changes bring about disadvantages to the employee, all alternatives have risks for employers and are likely to be opposed by employees (and their unions).
Terminating an employee’s contract and offering them a new one on reduced pay or benefits could leave employers open to Employment Tribunal claims. Dismissed employees, if they have the requisite length of continuous service, could bring claims for Unfair Dismissal/ Constructive Unfair Dismissal. Employees could also bring claims for breach of contract or unlawful deduction of wages claims in the civil courts and Employment Tribunal respectively. If employers fail to provide the relevant statutory/ contractual notice period during the process, they could also face claims of Wrongful Dismissal.
Not only is there the risk of claims, but employers need to be wary of the impact that “Fire and Rehire” will have on the morale of those employees who do continue to work for the employer and on future employment and retention rates.
Indeed, 67% of voters in a GMB union survey indicated that they would be less likely to use businesses who had employed the use of “Fire and Rehire”, which could have long-reaching repercussions for employers.
Even us lawyers can get “Fire and Rehire” wrong, as evidenced by the recent case of Khartun and Winn Solicitors which goes to show how difficult it can be to implement this process fairly, and how careful employers need to be when considering the use of “Fire and Rehire” practices. The Firm wanted to reduce employee’s hours and pay during the pandemic, however, their consultation process was not deemed to be meaningful, which left them open to claims when they implemented the “Fire and Rehire” practice following their consultation period. One of their employees, Ms Khartun, bought a claim against the Firm and was successful.
This recent case, alongside a long history of “Fire and Rehire” cases, serves as a warning to all employers about the difficulties presented when implementing this process, and just how careful they really need to be.
“Fire and Rehire” shouldn’t be the first choice of action when wanting to introduce contractual changes; and is often a last resort. Employers should check if flexibility clauses are written into contracts. Whilst this may give employers the right to make reasonable changes, caution should be applied in relying on this as many unilateral amendments cannot be imposed regardless of this clause. Alternatively, employers can commence a period of meaningful consultation with the employee with a view to agreeing the changes.
Employers should only opt to proceed with dismissing and re-engaging employees once all possible options have been considered, judge both the risks of legal action, and decide the changes are absolutely unavoidable. In terms of the process, ACAS recommends that a fair dismissal procedure be followed, employees are given sufficient notice (statutory or contractual, whichever is longer) and employees are offered the right to appeal.
In principle, although “Fire and Rehire” is legal, it could be considered morally questionable and employers need to be confident that taking such action, on balance, is worth it.
About the author: Tina Chander is the Head of Employment Law at Midlands law firm, Wright Hassall and deals with contentious and non-contentious employment law issues, acting for small businesses to large national and international corporations. She advises on a variety of employment law matters, including all aspects of employment tribunal proceedings and appeals.
About the firm: Wright Hassall is a top-ranked regional law firm, providing legal services including: corporate law; commercial law; litigation and dispute resolution; employment law and property law. The firm also advises on contentious probate, business immigration, information governance, professional negligence and private client matters.
Arden’s analysis of Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) data showed a 47% decrease in the number of sole practitioners operating in England and Wales in the past decade, a drop of 1,700. Sole practitioners now only account for 20% of practitioners overall, compared to 33% ten years ago.
The number of partnerships (inclusive of LLPs) has dropped by 39% over the same period, a total decline of 1,822. Partnerships now account for 29% of regulated practitioners where this figure stood at 43% a decade ago. This combined decline has been counterbalanced by the number of incorporated companies, which has more than doubled over the past ten years, increasing to 5085. In 2011, incorporated companies constituted 22% of all regulated legal practitioners, compared to 51% now. However, in England and Wales, the overall number of regulated solicitors practices is down 9% in ten years as the market has consolidated.
Arden believes this shift towards more corporatised structures from traditional partnership models has been influenced by the added ability to attract external investment and power more effectual business models. Arden anticipates more firms will continue to look to corporatisation as markets consolidate. Arden believes the pandemic could serve as a catalyst to reshape the mid-market and high street. Traditional firms have been especially challenged by the pandemic due to the added pressures of long-term underinvestment in IT, an ageing equity Partner group, and limited and reducing capital reserves. Simultaneously, the concept of remote working has become increasingly appealing for many legal practitioners as they experience first-hand the healthy work-life balance it can help to restore.
John Llewellyn-Lloyd, Head of Business Services at Arden, has commented: "The legal sector has changed significantly over the past decade, but I think that level of change is nothing compared to the disruption and consolidation we could see over the next few years. The corporate model is winning its battle with partnerships as the legal management structure of choice and at the smaller end of the spectrum, the UK legal market is very fragmented indeed and ripe for consolidation. Covid has affected a quantum shift in the rate of consolidation. These practitioners are under significant pressure to invest in IT infrastructure and reduce back-office costs, but they lack the cash to do so. I believe we will see more and more of these sole practitioners and small firms join the legal consultants whose 'officeless' model suddenly looks highly appealing to many."
Tinder’s settlement to end a class action over its practice of charging over-thirties nearly twice as much for premium subscriptions has come undone. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit said that the strength of class members’ claims was undervalued by the proposed $24 million deal.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also said that signs of collusion were not sufficiently considered by the district court, specifically the agreement’s inclusion of a “clear sailing provision”. This set out that dating app Tinder would not challenge the plaintiffs’ demand for $1.2 in attorneys’ fees. The appeals court has labelled this “excessive”.
Approximately 240,000 members were provided with 50 free “Super Likes” under the pre-certification class settlements. Super Likes enable the dating app’s users to express heightened interest in another user, costing $1 each. Members who submitted claims, less than 0.745% of the settlement class, could also have their choice of either a $25 cash payout, 25 free “Super Likes”, or a free one-month subscription if they were no longer subscribed to the platform.
Tinder has agreed to stop charging users different prices based on their age, however, this is only with respect to subscribers in California and the dating platform reserves the right to offer discounts to users who are 21 years old and younger.
Due to the claims rate being low, Tinder is set to pay out less than $45,000 of the estimated $6 million cash portion of the settlement.
Flavia Stefura, Senior Associate at MPR Partners, shares the disadvantages of using your own name as a trademark with Lawyer Monthly.
There is power in names, or so the saying goes. That is most certainly true in the world of luxury fashion brands. Some of the most renowned fashion houses are named after their founders: Chanel, named after the famous Gabrielle (Coco) Chanel, Dior, after Christian Dior, Burberry, after Thomas Burberry, and the list goes on.
There is value and goodwill associated with famous names, and for such value to be protected from free-riders who would take advantage, designers resort to the legal protection of trademarks. Trademarks are signs that allow the holder to show that the products or services under that trademark are controlled by it and to distinguish them from the products or services of another undertaking. Registering a sign as a trademark prevents other undertakings from using the same or a similar sign for goods and services whenever there may be confusion between the trademark holder and other undertakings with respect to the origin of goods and services.
However, while the advantages of wide recognition and increased value of a trademark registered by a successful designer cannot be denied, in the complex world of trademark protection there are also pitfalls of using your own name as a registered trademark. First, there is the issue of clearance. If one wishes to register their name as a trademark or simply use it in commerce without registration, one must ensure the name is not already registered for the goods or services for which the registration is intended. Otherwise, there are risks of litigation and exclusion from the market under that name. A telling example was the case of Chanel Jones, an Indiana-based hair salon owner, who lost the right to use her first name for commercial purposes, in a dispute against the French fashion powerhouse Chanel.
Another matter to be mindful of when registering one’s own name as a trademark is to be aware that the trademark achieves its own standing and becomes separate from the natural person. Therefore, the name can be sold together with the business that it represents. Once sold, the natural person who once registered the name is no longer able to use the same name in connection with a similar business, or, possibly, with any other business.
Judging from the case law available on this topic, it seems that some designers have not been aware of this potential issue when selling their eponymous trademarks. Famous designer names who can no longer be used in trade by their original holders include Elizabeth Emanuel, the designer of Princess Diana’s wedding dress, Paolo Gucci, Karen Millen, Joseph Abboud (in his case, the designer can use his name in trade following a disclaimer that the products are not related to the ones of the assignee).
In the case of Elizabeth Emanuel, who had sold the trademark “Elizabeth Emanuel '' and later tried to have the said trademark revoked, the highest court of the European Union, the European Court of Justice, gave a preliminary ruling. The Court reasoned that “even if the average consumer might be influenced in his act of purchasing a garment bearing the trademark ‘Elizabeth Emanuel’ by imagining that the appellant in the main proceedings was involved in the design of that garment, the characteristics and the qualities of that garment remain guaranteed by the undertaking which owns the trademark.”. As a result, the “Elizabeth Emanuel” trademark would not be revoked on the reason that it would mislead the public as to the origin of the goods when the goodwill associated with that mark has been assigned together with the business making the goods to which the mark relates. Luckily for Elizabeth Emanuel, her story has a happy ending, as she settled with Boi Group, the current owner of the trademark, to sell her clothes under her name within the TK Maxx chain.
A cautionary tale can be taken out of these examples. When choosing an eponymous trademark, one should always consider what would happen in future ventures in case the registered trademark and goodwill are sold to a third party. Designers cannot simply sell their business for large amounts of money and then expect to create new businesses using the same name.
This article contains general information and should not be considered as legal advice.
Stephanie Limaco and Leigh Crestohl of Zaiwalla & Co examine the possibility of an increase in foreign investment in Venezuela, especially with regards to oil, and highlight the reasons regarding this new interest.
There seems to be renewed interest in Venezuela by high-risk appetite investors. Recently, a couple of private equity funds were seeking to acquire shares in Venezuelan companies and invest in Venezuelan financial assets, and some foreign companies and investment groups acquired private companies or established branches in Venezuela, including DirectTV, Cargill and Liberty Mutual Holding. An economic adviser at London’s EM Funding has said that the opportunities for profit in the first phase of economic recovery are “immensely high”.
One driver of this emerging interest is likely to be the expectation that the US Government may revise its Venezuela sanctions programme, or at least introduce more exceptions to the very severe sanctions rules currently in place. Another reason may be a potential change of approach of the Venezuelan Government, reflected by the liberalisation of the economy in the last few years and the anti-blockade law ratified by the National Assembly a couple of months ago. The fact that the country has the largest oil reserves in the world, the largest gas reserves in Latin America, and its power generation infrastructure, also explain the interest.
Recently, the Venezuelan Government adopted several measures that were seen as gestures of goodwill by the Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, including the release from prison of a group of American executives of Citgo, an agreement with the World Food Programme and another with opposition representatives concerning Venezuela’s National Electoral Council.
Currently, the Biden administration is reviewing existing sanctions and one alternative approach that may allow for more targeted sanctions, assett forfeitures and indictments of Maduro officials. As talks between the Venezuelan Government and the opposition will soon resume in Mexico with Norwegian mediation, the EU, the US and Canada have indicated a willingness to review sanctions policies if there is meaningful progress in a comprehensive negotiation.
Sanctions relief for Venezuela, especially with regard to oil, would be essential for foreign investors because the country is subject to several concurrent and companies are usually inclined to over-comply rather than face the legal, commercial or reputational risks involved. The US sanctions regime is very extensive and applies potentially not only to US persons but also poses a risk of secondary sanctions for non-US entities. It includes broader sectoral sanctions, covering the gold and oil sectors, and transactions with the Government of Venezuela. Nevertheless, the US government recently authorised certain transactions involving the export or reexport of LPG to Venezuela, a relaxation of one of the restrictions imposed by the Trump administration.
The UK sanctions regime, in contrast, is only applicable to persons within the UK, and UK persons abroad. The list of Venezuela sanctions targets is more limited in scope than the US sanctions list, and it mainly consists of certain government officials and authorities (not commercial entities). However, investors would likely feel more confident if sanctions are also lifted or eased by the UK, Europe and other countries.
The government’s liberalisation of the economy from 2019 gave positive signals for private investors, who welcomed a relaxation of the rigid controls that had been in place for the previous 17 years. The elimination of currency and price controls led to a dollarisation of the economy, and by the beginning of 2020 more than half of transactions in Venezuela were in US dollars. Last November, a company started issuing fixed income dollar-denominated bonds in Venezuela, which was possible because of a change of rules by the government.
The recently ratified anti-blockade law, which allows an increase in private investment and the privatisation of state-owned and mixed enterprises, could also open a path to increased foreign investment in the oil industry. It is reported that Petróleos de Venezuela has started to sign Productive Services Agreements (ASPs) with new partners, giving more control to the private sector, although there is still uncertainty as to whether this will be successful.
Companies interested in investing in Venezuela will need to navigate multiple sanctions regimes, which can vary depending on changing political scenarios and circumstances. Potential investors should take prior advice from sanctions, compliance and export control experts. Further, these companies should obtain comprehensive legal advice to determine the best way to structure their investments to achieve maximum legal protection. Carefully drafted contracts, in particular choice of law and forum selection clauses, would be key in this assessment.
On Sunday, Taliban militants retook Kabul, almost two decades after being driven from Afghanistan's capital by US troops, leading to widespread concerns for Afghani citizens, particularly women, children, and minority groups.
In the UK, legal groups Bar Council, Bar Human Rights Committee, and Law Society have expressed grave concern about the fate of at least 250 female judges in the country. The groups have issued a joint statement on the situation:
“The Bar Council, the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, and the Law Society of England and Wales are gravely concerned about the situation in Afghanistan and the fate of all those who are working in the justice system of Afghanistan who are now facing a perilous future as the Taliban have taken power. We are extremely worried about the situation of at least 250 women judges in the country who we consider to be at particular risk. We urge the UK government not to abandon these courageous defenders of the rule of law and – in liaison with its international allies – to offer evacuation and safety and asylum in the UK to those women judges, their families, and other members of the legal profession who are in serious danger.”
The UK parliament is being recalled from its summer recess to debate the quickly-working situation in Afghanistan.
On 5 July 2021, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) published a report on the application of the polluter pays principle in the European Union. This report was intended to determine whether the principle was appropriately applied in four EU environmental policy areas, namely industrial pollution, waste, water, and soil.
Two main issues justified this audit:
The polluter pays principle was created for the first time in 1972 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 1992, the United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development recognised this principle as one of the twenty-seven guiding principles for future sustainable development.
The scope of the polluter pays principle has significantly increased since its creation. Indeed, at first, it only concerned the prevention and control costs against pollution. It was then extended to the costs of the measures taken by the authorities to address pollutant emissions and was then further extended to cover environmental liability. In other words, polluters should theoretically bear all the costs of the environmental damage they cause. Consequently, the European Commission needs to draft legislation based on the polluter pays principle and all Member States need to transpose, apply, and enforce environmental directives and regulations.
In France, the polluter pays principle is covered by Article L. 110-1 of the French Environmental Code according to which "the costs resulting from the prevention, reduction of pollution and fight against such pollution shall be borne by the polluter". This principle has a constitutional value given that it is implicitly mentioned in the body of the Environmental Charter, which provides that "any person shall contribute to remedying damage caused to the environment, in the conditions laid down by the law" (Article 4). Consequently, the polluter pays principle is used as a legal basis for the new rules on the indemnification of environmental damage created by the Biodiversity Law of 2016.
In the scope of its audit, the ECA has noted that the polluter pays principle is not applied uniformly. Indeed, it is not applied to the same extent depending on the environmental policy area:
The ECA concludes its report by stating that the coverage and application of the polluter pays principle is still widely incomplete. The Court further notes that the budget of the European Union is often used to finance decontamination actions, the costs of which should, pursuant to the polluter pays principle, be borne by the polluters themselves.
As a result, to help better integrate this principle, the ECA has issued three recommendations for the attention of the European Commission:
This report will undoubtedly push the European Commission to legislate and order the Member States to all have a homogeneous approach to the polluter pays principle, irrespective of the type of pollution at stake. Companies should anticipate this when entering into Lease or Purchase agreements of sites and/or buildings to ensure that any and all pollution that may be identified in the future remains the burden of the previous owner for instance. Indeed, there is a limit to the polluter pays principle which is of significant importance: contractual clause stating otherwise.
About the author: Sylvie Gallage-Alwis is a partner at the Paris office of specialist commercial disputes law firm, Signature Litigation.
With special thanks to Clara Heising, trainee at Signature Litigation.
Like every industry, law firms have spent more than a year working remotely due to the pandemic, and only now are some of them beginning to transition back to the office. For partners and other managers, the pandemic has been a struggle in quickly knowing which associates are available and who is the best candidate to help on a matter. As we look toward a future of remote and hybrid work, this problem is only increasing. On the positive side, this is the perfect time for law firms to look at options for modernising the way they allocate work.
Even before COVID, finding the best available people in a law firm was a challenge, especially when a firm had multiple offices and associates who travel for work. Partners may have just defaulted to working with whichever associate was most visible or familiar to them. Firms that have shifted assigning power to resource or work allocation managers were doing their best to make sure their lawyers were all being utilised at capacity, but it’s hard to pinpoint who is most available and most competent when associate data and information are scattered. Today’s utilisation problems are bigger than ever, and they need to be solved faster and better.
A CBRE survey of law firm clients found that 72% believe all of their attorneys and staff will have a degree of flexibility to work remotely, even beyond the pandemic. Law firms have been downsizing office space and considering shared office solutions, such as hotelling.
“Many law firms have worked hard to develop systems during the pandemic to closely monitor work allocation while conducting more frequent check-ins with associates,” reports Thomson Reuters. “While those should continue, there will be a need for additional mechanisms to manage hybrid teams.”
These mechanisms include training for managers and partners on tools to “distribute opportunities equitably both to in-office and remote workers,” as well as guidance for associates on how to “stay top-of-mind for assignments while also setting boundaries and adopting habits to avoid work burnout.”
What firms are missing is a way to help partners and resource or work allocation managers quickly determine who is available and has the right background and skills for each matter. Without an easily searchable database tracking lawyer availability, demographics, and experience, assigning and scheduling lawyers for matters is either a guessing game or a very long process. Either way, firm performance suffers.
Not only will poor capacity planning reflect badly in client work, but it will also lead to over and under utilising associates. The ones who have too much work on their plates will risk burnout. The ones who don’t have enough work will miss out on chances to develop their skills and are at risk of being unsatisfied and leaving the firm. Diverse associates can easily be overlooked and won’t be given equal opportunity to develop and advance in a firm.
As industries are affected by COVID, different law practices and office locations can see a surge or reduction in business, and firms need more options for cross-office collaboration. If the California office is overloaded with work because the tech sector is thriving, they can mitigate employee workloads by getting help from other office locations where the client work has been reduced during the pandemic.
In general, low visibility on lawyer availability across offices is a missed opportunity for firm-wide collaboration and balancing workloads. Now that hybrid work is on the rise, staying up to date with the availability and skills of all the firm’s associates, whether they’re working from home or in a different office, has become even more necessary for effective teamwork.
As part of its people management platform, viGlobal has created a work allocation solution that focuses on improving capacity planning and equitable work distribution. It looks to put smart tools in the hands of partners and resource or work allocation managers.
Requests for associates can specify the demographics, diversity data, skills, and experience level needed for a matter. Individual associate profiles are then filtered to pinpoint the most available and qualified associates, and users can explore an associate’s data, including their interests and matter experience, to make quick and effective staffing decisions.
“Law firms are looking for a way to find great lawyers to put on matters and projects,” viGlobal President and CEO Andrew Talpash said. “Our clients have told us that they not only need to know who is available across their office locations, they need to know whether they’re a good lawyer with the right competencies to do a great job for the client at hand.”
viGlobal said this solution can ensure that all lawyers are billing at capacity and have an equitable workload in terms of quantity and quality. The work allocation solution can also be used to staff non-billable work or to allocate work to legal support staff.
Unlike other professions, law firms rely on documents daily. So to say, one case may require the legal team to generate an entire library of documents, ranging from court filings to briefs and affidavits. Even in their large numbers, legal documents should be maintained in pristine conditions to be validly accepted and maintain professionalism. This is why understanding how to edit legal documents is important for any legal team.
Unfortunately, some errors may occur in between cases, client meetings, and preparing the document. If you are tasked with preparing a legal document, below are important things you should know.
Planning the document involves laying down the foundation for the editing process. In this stage, you should establish the following;
Once you have gathered the details above, create a realistic timeline for completion of the document. Note that the document may undergo several revisions and edits before being approved.
Grammar and formatting rules not only apply to legal documents. They apply to business documents and other types of writings. However, for legal documents that quote the law, correct grammar, spelling, and formatting are imperative. You should be fastidious with your punctuation and grammar to avoid confusion within your legal document.
That said, legal writing and formatting styles are as follows;
This is the most basic element of all documents. Different states and countries have varying standard paper sizes for their legal documents. However, North American countries use the American National Standards Institute format. Unlike the standard paper sheet sized 8.5x11 inches, the countries use a large size, measuring 8.5x14 inches. If you intend to publish the legal manuscript, follow all the publishing practices, which include the use of 8.5x11 inches printing paper typed on one side only.
Despite being the most straightforward part of preparing legal documents, most people still use the wrong font. The type of font used significantly affects the readers’ perspective of the entire document. Some courts accept legal documents prepared according to their specific requirements. For instance, the Virginia Supreme Court has a list of acceptable fonts that legal teams should use when preparing court documents. That said, consult widely to ensure that you use fonts within court-approved boundaries.
Margins and spacing are important determinants of the readability of any legal document. Poor spacing not only makes your document illegible but also forces other people to work harder before processing the written information. This may increasingly make it difficult for legal teams, such as employment lawyers, to interpret your writings. Fortunately, word processing programs, such as MS Word, have pre-built margin and spacing templates that make it easy to get the correct settings.
If you are required to file court booklets, as it is with most employment cases, you will have to print and bind your documents. This is not a simple process, as it is with other documents. Supreme courts have specific guidelines on how their booklets should be prepared to be validly accepted.
This includes the cover colour used for different filings, the weight of the documents, preferred binding or saddle stitching, and more. Ensure that you are adequately advised on how to print and bind these documents.
While specifications may change, these elements constitute a legal document.
Most people confuse incorrect formatting with document corruption. Incorrect formatting occurs when mistakes occur manually. On the other hand, document corruption occurs when the document has serious problems, including data errors that make it difficult for the document to load.
Document corruption occurs if the document has wrong layout and formatting, screen distortion, unreadable characters, wrong icons, or doesn’t display pictures. For word documents, the leading cause of document corruption is the use of old and outdated files. Therefore, it can easily be avoided if you routinely update the templates.
Compiling legal documents is undoubtedly lengthy and time-consuming. The same applies to those reading through the document. Therefore, make it easy for the readers by identifying important sections for easy reference. Make use of tags, colour-coded markers, and reference points.
Editing a legal document goes beyond the basic formatting required for ordinary documents. Even with the ambiguous nature of legal statements, you should ensure that your document is accurate, grammatically correct, punctuated, and formatted correctly. Additionally, edit your legal documents with an active voice and pay close attention to imperatives.
Blue Origin has filed a suit with the US Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the contract was unfairly awarded to SpaceX. In a statement, Blue Origin said: "We firmly believe that the issues identified in this procurement and its outcomes must be addressed to restore fairness, create competition, and ensure a safe return to the Moon for America.”
The human landing system (HLS) contract, informally referred to as the moon contract or lunar lander contract, was awarded to SpaceX, owned by Bezos’ billionaire rival Elon Musk, in April of this year. The contract is worth approximately $2.9 billion.
Since losing the contract in April, Blue Origin has fought resolutely to have the decision reversed. The company filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, but the watchdog chose to uphold NASA’s decision. In July, NASA administrator Bill Nelson received an open letter from Bezos, stating he would waive up to $2 billion in contract payments for the first two years if the agency agreed to add Blue Origin’s lunar lander to a key phrase of its HLS programme.
On Monday, NASA said it was aware of Blue Origin’s lawsuit and that it is currently reviewing the case.
